One insurer is suing five others at once, saying they all walked away from a defense they were contractually bound to provide.
New York Marine and General Insurance Company filed suit in Brooklyn federal court on June 29, 2026, against Travelers, James River, Colony, State National and United Specialty. The dispute is not about a consumer's claim. It is about which carriers must defend a construction manager and a property owner after a worker was hurt on a job site.
According to the complaint, it began with a March 2023 accident at 219 Jay Street in Brooklyn. A worker was injured and sued the site owner, 219 JSP, and the KSK Construction entities acting as construction manager. New York Marine, which insured KSK Construction Group, says it has been defending them in that underlying suit.
New York Marine says it should not be alone. The filing states that two trade contractors on the project - one handling plumbing and sprinklers, the other concrete - were each required by contract to name the owner and KSK Construction Group as additional insureds on a primary, non-contributory basis. Those contractors were insured by the five defendants. So, the complaint argues, those carriers should defend first.
The contracts were specific. Each trade agreement, the complaint says, required the owner and construction manager to be "named as an additional insured on a primary noncontributory basis." The Travelers policy, issued to the plumbing contractor, includes a blanket endorsement covering anyone the insured "agree[s] in a written contract to include as an additional insured."
The complaint then traces how the handoff broke down. It says counsel for the owner and the KSK entities tendered the defense to the contractors and their insurers. Travelers denied it in a December 13, 2023 letter, the filing states. James River, Colony, State National and United Specialty, the complaint alleges, never responded.
Stuck with the cost, New York Marine says it has spent $56,034.00 defending the owner and KSK entities through June 2, 2026, with the figure still rising.
It is asking the court for a declaratory judgment - a ruling that fixes the parties' rights - that the five insurers must defend and indemnify on a primary, non-contributory basis, ahead of New York Marine's own coverage. It also wants its costs back, plus interest and fees.
For claims professionals, the case is a tidy reminder of how additional-insured tenders unravel. A certificate and a contract clause promising primary coverage do not guarantee a clean handoff. When a tender is denied - or simply not answered - the carrier left covering the defense can find itself paying first and suing later.
None of these allegations has been tested in court, and no court has ruled on whether they owe a defense or indemnity.
